Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd. v. Santiago A. Guajardo

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 3, 2011
Docket13-10-00634-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd. v. Santiago A. Guajardo (Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd. v. Santiago A. Guajardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd. v. Santiago A. Guajardo, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

                                       NUMBER 13-10-00634-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

CLAYTON DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LTD.,                         APPELLANT,

                                                             v.

SANTIAGO A. GUAJARDO,                                                        APPELLEE.

                      On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

                                        of Nueces County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                            Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


Appellant, Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 07-62659-4.  Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have settled the case.  Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).  Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.  Costs will be taxed against appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of February, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clayton Directional Drilling, Ltd. v. Santiago A. Guajardo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-directional-drilling-ltd-v-santiago-a-guaj-texapp-2011.